« Principal makes an unprincipled decision. | Main | Iron in the blood of the Betio Bastards »
May 10, 2005
Kevin Francois is back in school after suspension reduced
As reported by The Moderate Voice, Kevin Francois is back in school after his ten-day suspension was cut to three days. He's back in school now, according to today's Ledger-Enquirer:
Kevin, 17, a junior at Spencer, was suspended Wednesday for 10 days for cursing and being defiant after he was told to give up his cell phone during his lunch period while talking to his mother, Sgt. 1st Class Monique Bates, who serves in Iraq with Fort Benning's 203rd Forward Support Battalion, 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division.According to the Muscogee County School District's policy, students are allowed to have cell phones in school but cannot use them during school hours.
Kevin's suspension was reduced Friday after his story caught national attention. He served only two full days.
At Monday's meeting, Spencer principal Olivia Rutledge and assistant principal Alfred Parham discussed behavior expectations and methods of supporting Kevin, according to a media release from the school district. It also stated that Kevin will not be penalized for his suspension, and Hartwell will meet with his counselors and teachers today.
"They were calm about it and very professional about it," Hartwell said. "I was really happy with them."
In a press release, Muscogee County School District Superintendent John Phillips said Kevin would be asked to sign a "behavior contract" to return to school.
"We didn't have to sign the contract as long as we worked out a deal with him and how he behaves in school and don't mess up in grades," said Hartwell. She said she knew only through the Ledger-Enquirer that a meeting was set for Monday. Kevin and Hartwell, instead, arrived at the school as the second bell rang at 7:30 a.m. for class to begin. Earlier, Hartwell said she and Kevin turned down a morning interview with Fox News in Atlanta to get him back in school.
During the meeting, the school's switchboard remained busy with callers upset about Kevin's suspension. But it wasn't as bad as Friday, said secretary Lillian Humber, who remained calm and pleasant as she answered each call.
"It looked like Christmas lights," said Humber, referring to hundreds of calls and e-mails from Friday.
Here's what continues to bother me about this story. Kevin has maintained that he told the teacher who first approached him, Felicita Pescia, "This is my mom in Iraq. I'm not about to hang up on my mom." The story continues:
Kevin said Pescia tried to take the phone, causing it to hang up. Pescia hasn't been reached for comment. He then went with Pescia to the school's office, where a secretary took the phone out of his hand, Kevin said. The phone rang again. Kevin said his mother left a message since he could not answer it. He said he told the officials it was his mother. The Ledger-Enquirer verified the 12:37 p.m. message during an interview Thursday with Kevin. In the message, played for a reporter, his mother scolded him for hanging up and told him to answer the phone when she calls.
The principal, Alfred Parham, (who evidently has some family issues himself-see comment from Jackie Kane Parham) has disputed Kevin's story. The superintendent has all but called him a liar. And one of his teachers, in a comment left on the original MCM entry, is evidently questioning whether the call really was from his mother, despite the verification from the Ledger-Enquirer. Does this sound like a supportive atmosphere? Not to me.
Here's what Kevin's science teacher has to say:
Hi, I am one of Kevin's teachers. I sympathize with Kevin, if that was his mother that called. Unfortunately, nearly every student has a cell phone in class and half of our students here at Spencer have parents in the military. Many of those parents are in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have a hard enough time preparing them for life as an adult without my students answering cell phones in class, lunch or on campus, regardless of who it might be. I would think a reasonable adult could understand this. I support my administration and their decisions. If his mother wants to talk to Kevin during school hours she can call the office so we know it's a legitimate call. Kevin can be called into the office very quickly and efficiently.To the best of my knowledge (which is better than the general public's in this situation), Kevin was disciplined because of his uncontrolled behavior afterwards, not because of his phone call. Kevin was suspended 3 days instead of 10. And, he was back in class today where I agree he is supposed to be. We all have situations from time to time that require special attention. Kevin, along with the rest of us, needs to make sure to keep a calm attitude and be constructive. That's what we're hoping to teach our students.
Sincerely, Kevin's Science Teacher
I agree that everyone involved needs to maintain a calm and constructive focus. However, I think this teacher is missing the point. There is a huge difference between a student chatting with a friend during class and a student standing outside the school on his lunch break talking with a deployed parent. If the faculty and administration in this school district cannot or will not differentiate between these two scenarios, there are some serious problems.
This teacher's suggestion that parents be required to call the school office is problematic. Deployed troops might stand in line for hours for a 10-20 minute phone call. Requiring that phone calls go through a central switchboard and be approved (the process for approval has not been explained) and the student be called to the office is unwieldy at best. I have often been placed on hold when calling my son's high school. Who would determine the legitimacy of the call? The person that answers the phone? Someone else? And then, the student must be located and called to the phone. In Kevin's case, he was at lunch and could presumably be anywhere in the building. How would he be "quickly and efficiently" located?
I understand the teacher's complaint that educators at this high school have "a hard enough time preparing them for life as an adult" without allowing children of deployed troops the opportunity to talk to their parents via cell phone. However, this isn't all about the teachers. If teachers are unwilling to make a small accomodation to support the parent-child bond, it's a problem. In another year, Kevin will graduate and will never have to interact with this teacher again. His bond with his mother will last his entire life. Which relationship is more important? And which should take priority?
I'm a teacher too. As I said before, my cell phone is my lifeline to my son while he is deployed and when he calls I take his calls, no matter what else I'm doing. I would not hesitate to extend that same consideration to any of my students in similar circumstances. That is not only basic courtesy, it is common sense; something demanded of students but not always extended to them by the teachers who are busy "preparing them for life".
Posted by Deb at May 10, 2005 04:32 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.marinecorpsmoms.com/mt-tb.cgi/666
Comments
I am so sick and tired of the sensationalism that this situation is getting. The news media is the "bad guy" here. So, they took his phone, so %#$@* what? He is a child, a student and the rules are the rules. That is the reason why we have so many children not finishing high school, college and becoming good productive adults. He was WRONG, he didn't follow the rules. What if we had our soldiers in Iraq doing what they wanted to do - and not followig orders and rules?
Posted by: Tina at May 10, 2005 03:57 PM
Hi Deb. I know I said I'd leave you alone, but I am just so irresistibly attracted to military issues. I simply cannot help myself. I promise to be more of a gentleman from now on. I regret my strongly worded comments earlier. That is no way to talk to a lady.
Some of the bloggers have opened up on me in various ways. Most are just vulgar attacks, but some people assert that the Army is "incapable" of creating a system whereby parents can talk to their children at regularly scheduled intervals. My question is: Why?
Look, perhaps the military can set up a graduated system that extends phone privalleges to various soldiers based on their specific needs. For example, the Army could keep people on a sort of regular rotation, say, parents with children over the age of twelve(?) get first dibs at the phone after 4pm Eastern Time. I don't know how most military families are composed, but, in the Marines, where the force is the youngest, I imagine most families have very young children. Perhaps as a courtesy these Marines could allow for the setup of something like this. In conclusion, this issue is of such intensity that I believe the military should take serious measures to find a good solution for everybody.
Oh yeah, hey Deb, I think that at my age now (27) I am going to start barking up the Army tree. I still love Marines--the value of the Marine Corps is obvious--but I think that in terms of what I want to give to the United States, at least for me, the Army is the more appropriate choice.
Best,
MATTSON
Posted by: Mattson at May 11, 2005 02:59 AM
Wile I sympathize with the kid... Cell phones are a MAJOR problem in schools these days and I don't think he should have ignored the rule in front of everyone... It's flaunting the rule, no matter the reason. Mom knows he is in school and that there are no cell phones allowed, or at least she should.
I am a vet and a patriot and support the troops deeply, however, this is probably blown way out of proportion. My initial reaction was to support the kid, but I have changed my mind.
Posted by: Yarbz at May 11, 2005 12:12 PM
Maybe this is all old news but I just read the posts from Tina and Yarbz and I can’t help but feel sad. Tina is hung up on rules instead of human feeling. Sure, cell phones should not be used on school grounds for chatting with friends But, this is a boy with no father and a mother at war. Each moment of his life he lives with the knowledge that he could be an orphan. He was not “rebellious, he is not a criminal, nor skirting his studies, he was talking to the only parent he has. Perhaps Tina doesn’t understand the bond between mother and child. That is too bad because it is a wonderful thing. Tina is right about one thing, he is a child. As such should he be held to the same standards as a well trained and disciplined soldier? Hardly. Perhaps the children who are not finishing high school or college and becoming productive adults are those who do not have strong bonds with their parents. I would worry more about a child who did not care to talk to his mom than a child who gets upset when he is not allowed to.
And the post from Yarbz: Yes, maybe his mom should have known he was in school. But maybe she thought he was in school with reasonable and compassionate people who would understand the importance of a boy talking to his mom in Iraq. You make a scary statement, “It’s flaunting the rules no matter what�. It is this black and white, “rules are more important than people� attitude that that can destroy the very liberties we all supposedly hold dear. A society with no exceptions for compassion is tyranny. The very thing we have fought to eliminate in Iraq.
Posted by: Tom at May 16, 2005 08:30 PM